Laserfiche WebLink
Case 8:23••cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 9 of 45 Page ID #:9 <br /> 1 25. In fact, at the Council meeting on February 7, 2023, after hearing the <br /> 2 remarks made by SOS's representatives, and after stating that it would be a tragic loss <br /> 3 for the City's residents if SOS's new outpatient clinic was not allowed to go forward, <br /> 4 one of the councilmembers sought to reopen the hearing on the Permanent Ordinance in <br /> 5 order to send the Ordinance back to staff for further review and analysis for a possible <br /> 6 amendment. However, at that point, the City Attorney interjected and materially misled <br /> 7 the Council by incorrectly stating that, since the Urgency Ordinance was allegedly still <br /> 8 in effect and would supposedly never expire, then it would be a complete waste of time <br /> 9 to make any changes to the CUP requirement in the Permanent Ordinance. <br /> 10 26. The undeniable truth, however, was that, under the explicit provisions of <br /> 11 Government Code section 65858, the Urgency Ordinance had actually expired on <br /> 12 February 3, 2023, by operation of California law. Nevertheless, following the remarks <br /> 13 by the City Attorney, the Mayor and all but one of the councilmembers swiftly voted to <br /> 14 approve the Permanent Ordinance. <br /> 15 27. For purposes of clarification, none of the claims set forth below are based <br /> 16 upon, or seek any compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, or other relief arising out of or <br /> 17 relating to, any statements made by the City Attorney at the February 7' Council <br /> 18 meeting. Rather, such remarks have been reported only to the extent that they bear on <br /> 19 the City's unfair rejection of SOS's requests to reopen the public hearing on the <br /> 20 Permanent Ordinance to allow SOS's representatives a meaningful opportunity to <br /> 21 present their arguments in opposition to that Ordinance, both orally and in writing. <br /> 22 28. The reasons why SOS is challenging both the Urgency Ordinance (to the <br /> 23 extent that the City claims it is still in effect) and the Permanent Ordinance (collectively, <br /> 24 the "Ordinances") can be summarized as follows: (a) there is no rational basis for either <br /> 9 _ <br /> Complaint of Share Our Selves <br />